Re: Can any pathological input thwart a simulating abort decider?

On 3/23/2024 1:57 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 23.mrt.2024 om 17:53 schreef olcott:

On 3/23/2024 11:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 23.mrt.2024 om 17:08 schreef olcott:

On 3/23/2024 9:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 23.mrt.2024 om 14:58 schreef olcott:

On 3/23/2024 4:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 22.mrt.2024 om 19:41 schreef olcott:

01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12 }
>
H is a simulating abort decider that supposed to
correctly determine whether or not it needs to abort
the simulation of any pathological inputs that are
attempting to thwart this abort decision.
>
H must abort every simulated input that would not
otherwise halt to prevent its own non-termination.
>
It is a self-evident verified fact that every H(D,D)
that decides to abort its simulated D(D) is correct
in doing so because this does prevent its own
non-termination.
>

>
It is self-evident that when H is programmed to abort and return false, then [the simulated] D will

>
immediately stop running never having reached its last instruction to halt.

>
As can be seen above, if H returns false in line 03, then D will go to line 04 and line 06 and halt (unless aborted).
>

>
You still do not understand that functions called in infinite
recursion never return to their caller, thus must have grossly
exaggerated your programming skill.

>
Even a beginner in C will see that if the simulated D, using the H that is programmed to abort and return false, will continue with line 04 then line 06 and halt (unless aborted).
>

>
01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12 }
>
That is the strawman deception we are only talking about the
fact that the D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach
its own line 06 and halt.

 Denying a verified fact is not a strong rebuttal.
 

>

When the simulated D calls its simulator this call cannot possibly
return to its caller. The relationship between the simulated D(D)
and its simulator makes a call D(D) to its own simulator isomorphic
to infinite recursion.

>
It is exactly the relation with the simulator that aborts, which makes that also the simulated H is programmed to abort and return false.
Olcott is again contradicting himself.
>

>
That the directly executed D(D) is an entirely different instance
that does not have this same pathological relationship is summed
up in your own reply.

>
I am not talking about a directly executed D, but a simulated D!
I am not talking about a directly executed D, but a simulated D!
I am not talking about a directly executed D, but a simulated D!
>
This simulated D halts (unless aborted)!

>
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line
06 and halt. That you say otherwise proves your insufficient
programming skill.
>

It seems too difficult for olcott to see, what even a beginner sees, that H, programmed to return false, also returns false when simulated (unless aborted).

>
When I worked at the US Army Corps of engineers an independent
contractor rated my programs as the best quality of all of the
programs that they reviewed and they reviewed all of the programs.

 If true, I am very sorry for olcott, that he is no longer able to see, what even a beginner sees, that H, programmed to return false, also returns false when simulated (unless aborted).

Everyone with sufficient programming skill can see that this is a
verified fact:
*D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final state*
*at line 06 in an infinite number of steps of correct simulation*
Some of these people might lie about it.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer